remanded EB-1C Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clct~~.!~ inwarranted 
hasion of personal pr~vacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
MAR 0 4 2010 
SRC 08 800 15450 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 I 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reopen or reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. !j 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Perry  hew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The matter will be remanded for further 
consideration. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to hire the beneficiary permanently in the position of chief 
executive. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to submit a statement from an authorized official of the 
petitioning entity in support of the Form 1-140 and denied the petition solely on that basis. However, a 
comprehensive review of the record shows that the petitioner did, in fact, submit a support letter shortly after 
the electronic filing of its Form 1-140. Therefore, the director's finding is hereby withdrawn. 
Notwithstanding the director's oversight, the AAO has reviewed the record in its entirety and finds that the 
petitioner failed to meet a number of the eligibility requirements. 
First, the record does not establish that the petitioner has satisfied the provisions set forth in 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.56)(3)(i)(B), which states that the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in 
a qualifying managerial or executive capacity for at least one out of the three years prior to her entry to the 
United States as a nonimmigrant to work for the same employer. In the present matter, the only documents 
that address the beneficiary's position with the foreign entity were submitted in response to a request for 
additional evidence (WE) that was issued on August 21, 2003 with regard to a previously filed Form 1-140.' 
Although the petitioner described the beneficiary's employment abroad in the response to the RFE, the 
description lacked sufficient detail about the beneficiary's specific daily job duties and did not establish that 
the tasks primarily performed were within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner did 
not provide sufficient information or documentation with regard to the foreign entity's organizational 
hierarchy such as to establish the availability of a support staff who would relieve the beneficiary from having 
to primarily perform job duties outside of a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. An employee who 
"primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be 
"primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act 
(requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). Without sufficient information to 
establish what specific job duties the beneficiary performed during his employment abroad, the AAO cannot 
conclude that the petitioner meets the provisions of 8 C.F.R. tj 204.56)(3)(i)(B). 
Second, with regard to the beneficiary's proposed position with the U.S. entity, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.56)(5) requires 
that the petitioner provide a detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed job duties. Case law further 
emphasizes the need for a detailed job description, finding that the actual duties themselves reveal the true 
nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), am 905 F.2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The record as presently constituted contains a vague job description that focuses on the 
beneficiary's discretionary authority and policy-making role. The job description fails to cite specific tasks 
The record shows that had previously filed another Form 1-140 (receipt number SRC0226350709) on September 6, 
2002. However, the director denied that petition in a decision dated January 7,2004 and the AAO subsequently issued a 
decision dated May 20,2005, dismissing the petitioner's appeal of the director's denial. 
the beneficiary would perform, nor does it establish who within the petitioning entity would relieve the 
beneficiary from having to perform the daily operational tasks, which, while necessary for the petitioner's 
daily function, would nevertheless be deemed as non-qualifying. As stated earlier, in order to be classified as 
a multinational manager or executive, the primary portion of the beneficiary's tasks must be of a managerial 
or executive nature rather than tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services. See Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
Additionally, while a final determination regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity is not solely based 
on the petitioner's organizational hierarchy, this factor can and should be considered, as it helps to assess a 
company's overall ability to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform tasks outside of a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. See Family, Inc. v. US. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing with approval Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 178 
(D.C. Cir. 199 1); Fedin Bros. Co. v. Sava, 905 F.2d 4 1, 42 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Q Data Consulting, 
Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2003). In the present matter, the petitioner has not provided 
sufficient documentation to establish its ability to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform 
non-qualifying tasks. As such, the beneficiary's proposed employment has not been shown as being primarily 
within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Lastly, the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner meets the provisions of 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D), which states that the petitioner must establish that it has been doing business for at least 
one year prior to filing the Form 1-140. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.50)(2) states that doing business means 
"the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services by a firm, corporation, or other entity 
and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office." 
In the present matter, the record shows that in the AAO's prior decision dated May 20, 2005, the petitioner was 
informed that the record lacked any invoices establishing that the petitioner had been providing its services during 
the time period and in the manner prescribed by regulation. In reviewing the documentation that has been 
submitted in support of the instant petition, it appears that the petitioner has once again failed to submit evidence 
to establish that it has been doing business on a "regular, systematic, and continuous" basis since May 12, 2007, 
or one year prior to the date the instant Form 1-140 was filed. See id. 
Given the above analysis, while the AAO will remand this matter back to the director for further action, it 
finds that further evidence must be submitted in order to affirmatively find that the petitioner is eligible for 
the immigration benefit sought. In reviewing the record, the director may request additional evidence per the 
above discussion as well as any other evidence the director deems necessary to determine the petitioner's 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
ORDER: The director's decision dated December 23, 2008 is hereby withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded for further action and consideration consistent with the above discussion 
and entry of a new decision.